Hey folks!

Ran into a situation tonight that I didn't know how to answer:

Battlewagon with a Deffrolla hits a skimmer, which gets to dodge the ram on a 3+. Flipping open the ork codex to the deffrolla, the only requirement for the defrolla to hit is that you tank shock a unit. The skimmer dodged the ram and common sense seems to dictate that it would dodge the deffrolla, but the rules seem to indicate that it doesn't.

And we all know that we abandon common sense when you come to play 40k.

Anyone with something more than an opinion to throw at this?

Yes. No. Maybe?

It's unclear at best.

Gorkamorka wrote:Yes. No. Maybe?

It's unclear at best.

This. The rules are 110% silent on the issue, and there is no RaW answer unfortunately.

I would say it's like ramming so you get the 3+ save, but yeah nothing in the rules to say either way. I'm all for getting the save as a Dark Eldar player =p

Oshova

Gunna disagree with what you said on common sense dash. There's no doubt in my mind that when they wrote the rules they intended for you to be able to dodge it.

The Deffrolla damage is caused by a Ram. If the Skimmer dodges, the Ram doesn't happen. If the Ram doesn't happen, no damage caused by the Ram can happen.

Dodged or not it's pretty clear the skimmer takes the damage.

Why?

Because its a post to be argumentative.

If you dodge the Ram, then no Ram occurred

In which case, as Rank == tank shock, no tank shock occurred

In which case no damage occurs.

So then if you do a deffrolla ram, do you get the d6 hits + the ram?

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you dodge the Ram, then no Ram occurred

In which case, as Rank == tank shock, no tank shock occurred

In which case no damage occurs.

I think you're missing something rather important.

A.) If you shoot at a unit, you may assault it.

B.) If you shoot at a unit, and cause no damage, you still shot at the unit.

C.) If you shoot at a unit and cause no damage because they make their saves.....you STILL get to assault them because you shot at them. They just avoided the damage. The assault isn't based on the damage you did, its based on you declaring the action.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A.) If you tank shock a unit, you also deffrolla it.

B.) If you tank shock a unit and cause no damage - or if they pass their leadership, or if the vehicle suffers no damage or makes a save) - you STILL tank shocked it.

C.) The deffrolla isn't dependent upon the tank shock causing damage, its dependent upon your declaration of a tank shock on a unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------

So with that said; I noted in my first post that common sense seemed to dictate that you would dodge the deffrolla if you dodge the ram, although the rules don't seem to support that common sense conclusion.

@Fiercegoldfish, I think you need to re-read what I wrote.

@insaniak: I have the codex and the rulebook. You say the deffrolla damage is caused by a ram...I just explained it the best that I could. Could you elaborate a bit more in depth for me? I've been wrong before, although with two rules lawyers chiming in at the beginning here and telling me there *is* no clear rule...

@nosferatu: I think my logic steps were aimed at you. If you dodge a tank shock hit, you avoid the damage, but the tank shock still happened - see shooting analogy. You don't put the tank shocking vehicle back in its starting location and say, "Well, I didn't tank shock, so I'll try again!" The tank shock was definitely executed; the damage was just avoided.

And to pre-empt anyone's inevitable fluffy argument....the deffrolla is a giant spiked ball on a hinged lever system on the front of a deffrolla. While the skimmer is lifting off and not getting smacked into, the giant spiky ball is following them up and crashing into them. I can see a flier not getting hit, but a skimmer just skims. =p

You tank shock even if you dont make contact anyone, as the ENTIRE move is a "Tank Shock Attack"

So if the Skimmer avoids the Ram the skimmer was never rammed, even though you still performed a Ram Move.

Just the act of tank shocking / ramming a vehicle with a deff rolla will cause deff rolla damage. If the skimmer dodges it would be successful on not getting the “ram” portion of damage but the deff rolla damage would go through. In fact if the deff rolla vehicle is stopped by the dodge move the deff rolla will cause 2d6 hits.

The difficulty most people seem to be having is that GW uses the term tank shock attack to describe two different things.

The entire move from the moment the moving player declares he is making a tank shock is called the tanks shcok attack. And then the moment that the unit the vehicle comes into contact with has to make their morale check is also called the tank shock attack. These obviously aren the same thing but the same term is used.

There is no target or for that matter even a particular unit involved in the first part, its only when an enemy unit is contacted that the second part occurs. So a ram has to occur for the deff rolla to trigger, since it has to be the second usage that ir relevant to the rolla.

For ramming a skimmer the rules tell us that the ramming vehicle moves into contact with the skimmer, and then the skimmer may attempt to dodge. If a 3+ is rolled the skimmer avoids the tank, so the ram never takes place. If the ram never takes place, then there is no tank shock attack involving the skimmer so the deff rolla cannot trigger.

Before anyone argues too much more, there is second hurdle for the ramming vehicle.

Even if the deff rolla somehow would inflict its d6 hits, the dodging skimmer can take no damage from the hits, since the dodge rules specifically tell us that neither vehicle takes any damage.

So one way or the other, a successful dodge negates a deff rolla.



Sliggoth

PS Now if only all the other deff rolla questions were quite so easy to solve. The whole problem of disembarking over/ around the rolla and how does one assault a bw from the front arc?

@dash: I saw what you wrote, I just believe that when a rule cannot be decided, common sense SHOULD be applied. Maybe that's not the way it works around here, but I think it should be.

more on-topic: I think the term "Neither vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed" (pg 71, "ramming a skimmer") Might be up for interpretation at this point. It does say neither vehicle takes ANY damage, so would this not include the rolla? Would the fact that the crew is now "confused" and has "stopped in its tracks" not mean that further attacks wouldn't be possible?

Edit: beat me to the "any damage point"

In order for "tank shocks" to affect vehicles, you pretty much have to be able to exchange the words "ram" and "tank shock" freely in all rules.

Therefore, if the dodge nullifies the ram, the dodge will also nullify the "tank shock" and thus no damage from the deff rolla occurs.

I'll grant that it's not 100% clear, but I feel that this interpretation has merit. GW fethed up the rules with that FAQ anyways, so we really can't tell what they are any more.

what gave the ability to the deffrolla to hit vehicles was the clarification that a tank shock is a form of ramming. If a skimmer can dodge a ram there for it can dodge a tankshock.

General_Chaos wrote:what gave the ability to the deffrolla to hit vehicles was the clarification that a tank shock is a form of ramming. If a skimmer can dodge a ram there for it can dodge a tankshock.

Except that you're not dodging the tank shock, you're dodging the damage. Kinda like the shooting analogy. Not hurting a unit during shooting doesn't mean you didn't shoot at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:

the dodge rules specifically tell us that neither vehicle takes any damage.

From the ramming hit. The "Doesn't take damage" is not a universal rule that makes it invulnerable to all incoming damage.

Read the ramming a skimmer rules on pg 71 again. On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank. Nothing at all about avoiding the damage, its the tank itself thats being avoided. So no ram at all even occurs, because the tank has been avoided. Where do you draw the conclusion that the damage is somehow being avoided? The ram itself at that point is the tank shock, there is no hit inflicted so there is no tank shock. If the rules said that the hit was still inflicted then your arguement would have merit, but there is nothing in the rules to support that idea that the ram occurs.

And there is no restriction on the neither vehicle suffers any damage. Nothing at all says its from the ramming hit. "any damage" is not restrictive in any way, in fact the word any can hardly be any more inclusive.


Sliggoth

It is interesting that this point has not been made here:

the deffrolla does not say when you SUCCESSFULLY tank shock (or ram) a unit.

it says when you tank shock (or ram) a unit.

if a skimmer dodges the ram, that just means neither vehicle is subject to damage under the ram rules.

where does it say anywhere that a skimmer dodge negates the effects of any wargear being carried by the offending vehicle??

I'd love some clarification on this one, but it seems very straightforward from that angle.

NaZ

+1 to NaZ

NaZ wrote:It is interesting that this point has not been made here:

the deffrolla does not say when you SUCCESSFULLY tank shock (or ram) a unit.

it says when you tank shock (or ram) a unit.

if a skimmer dodges the ram, that just means neither vehicle is subject to damage under the ram rules.

where does it say anywhere that a skimmer dodge negates the effects of any wargear being carried by the offending vehicle??

I'd love some clarification on this one, but it seems very straightforward from that angle.

NaZ

So if you ram 13" towards a tank that ends up being 14" away the deffrolla still triggers? You declared a ram, so you tank shocked, even though you didn't actually affect the vehicle you intended to affect.

IMO it's similar to the dodge. You intended to ram (tank shock) the vehicle, but the dodge prevented it from happening.

no, as you never came into contact with a vehicle no tank shock ever occured, invalid example.

You don't have to come into contact with an enemy unit to ram/tank shock.

The rules tell you what to do, you rotate, and move a specified number of inches in the desired direction. The rules then describe what happens if you come into contact with a unit.

Even if you don't come into contact with a unit, you have still tank shocked.

exactly. you dont make a dodge roll for the ram or suffer the effect of the deffrolla if the battlewagon never makes it into btb with the target.

But, according to the idea that the skimmer still takes deffrolla hits even if it dodged, because the battlewagon still executed a tank shock, then you would.

kill dem stunties wrote:no, as you never came into contact with a vehicle no tank shock ever occured, invalid example.

But that's also exactly what happens when the skimmer dodges...

You declare a ram... but the skimmer dodges out of the way, so no ram occurs.


This isn't the same situation as shooting and missing still allowing an assault. That would only be a valid analogy if the Deffrolla allowed you to make an assault phase attack on the unit against which you declared a tank shock.

A tank makes a tank shock move whether or not it actually comes into contact with the target unit. Where the rules get fuzzy is on whether the actual 'Tank Shock' is this tank shock move, or the sequence of events that occurs when this tank shock move brings the tank in contact with an enemy unit.

If the latter, then dodging out of the way means that no Tank Shock (and by extension Ram) has occured.
If the former, then yes, as a tank shock (or ram) has been declared, the Deffrolla damage will happen... but by extension Deffrollas will also inflict their damage on any unit against which a tank shock is declared, whether or not the vehicle actually reaches the unit.

I'm going with the idea that the 'tank shock move' is just the movement involved in attempting to make a Tank Shock... and the actual Tank Shock is what happens when you physically contact the unit... because the other interpretation leads to a very silly place.

willydstyle wrote:

NaZ wrote:It is interesting that this point has not been made here:

the deffrolla does not say when you SUCCESSFULLY tank shock (or ram) a unit.

[....]

NaZ

So if you ram 13" towards a tank that ends up being 14" away the deffrolla still triggers? You declared a ram, so you tank shocked, even though you didn't actually affect the vehicle you intended to affect.

IMO it's similar to the dodge. You intended to ram (tank shock) the vehicle, but the dodge prevented it from happening.

Sooo this.. If this successfully rule would be applied to anything this game would be broken beyond belief. Seriously.. Apply this logic to most of the rules and have fun playing total gak.
Imho - successful dodge equals no TS/Ram on this vehicle, and this equals to no deffrolla damage.

NaZ wrote:It is interesting that this point has not been made here:

the deffrolla does not say when you SUCCESSFULLY tank shock (or ram) a unit.

it says when you tank shock (or ram) a unit.

if a skimmer dodges the ram, that just means neither vehicle is subject to damage under the ram rules.

where does it say anywhere that a skimmer dodge negates the effects of any wargear being carried by the offending vehicle??

I'd love some clarification on this one, but it seems very straightforward from that angle.

NaZ

wow ok so I would declare to tank shock someone 48" away and damn I failed but you still take 1d6 hits... ork technology rocks...

They are the masters of teleportation technology

General_Chaos wrote:

NaZ wrote:It is interesting that this point has not been made here:

the deffrolla does not say when you SUCCESSFULLY tank shock (or ram) a unit.

it says when you tank shock (or ram) a unit.

if a skimmer dodges the ram, that just means neither vehicle is subject to damage under the ram rules.

where does it say anywhere that a skimmer dodge negates the effects of any wargear being carried by the offending vehicle??

I'd love some clarification on this one, but it seems very straightforward from that angle.

NaZ

wow ok so I would declare to tank shock someone 48" away and damn I failed but you still take 1d6 hits... ork technology rocks...

Yes, that would work, were it that you declare tank shocks vs specific units.

You don't, you tank shock x" in y Direction. If you come into contact with an enemy, only THEN are they tank shocked.

Lets start with RAW...
Deff rolla's rules:
'Any any shock made by a battle wagon with a deff rolla causes D6 str 10 hits on the victim..' (C:Ork, p.55)

tank shock -> ram special rules:

"Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where other vehicle has been impacted, the strength as calculated by the following:..." (BGB, p.69)

Skimmer rules for dodging rams:
"3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle suffers any damage" (BGB, p.71)

Interpretation for me:
Deff rolla replaces the number of hits and the calculation function within the ram special rules
but the ram can be avoided outright as the skimmer by rolling 3+ on 1d6,
this which means the ram has not been made but rather the vehicle has moved the distance to be stopped in front of the vehicle,
the skimmer is therefore no longer the victim of the ram, because the ram has been avoided, therefore no hits are incurred.

Reasoning:
The rolla modifies the normal ram for a battle wagon would be 1 hit at str 5 + speed (distance moved / 3, rounding down), at best you can get 1 str 9 hit, with the deff rolla, regardless of the speed you have traveled you will always hit d6 at str 10 if the ram/tank shock occurs.
The skimmer can always avoid the hit.
The RAW states its an automatic hit EXCEPT when the skimmer has dodged the ram.

Fluff:
The skimmer can move far faster than the tank that is attempting to hit it, the crew are likely to be trained to react to faster conditions and are more alert. It is likely to see the tank coming, or in the case of Orks, hear it, and react quicker than a regular tank, this is it could move up, sideways or do a loop the loop (skimmers dont just hover millimetres above the ground, it could be meters)

Also if a skimmer passes it's save to Ramming, then the ramming vehicle stops at the edge of the vehicle looking mildly confused. And move no further, this would mean that the Deff Rolla wouldn't make contact with the opposing vehicle.

Oshova

Oshova wrote:Also if a skimmer passes it's save to Ramming, then the ramming vehicle stops at the edge of the vehicle looking mildly confused. And move no further, this would mean that the Deff Rolla wouldn't make contact with the opposing vehicle.

Oshova

That's not actually true since the skimmers special dodging rule cannot be used unless the BW/Deff Rolla comes in contact with it.

The Ramming tank is moved into contact with the skimmer as normal... but if the skimmer passes the dodge roll, it 'avoids' the enemy tank. So while physically the two made contact, so far as the rules are concerned after the fact, no contact occurred, because the skimmer moved out of the way. The contact is merely the trigger for the ensuing sequence.

Even so, the player doesn't move the skimmer on a successful dodge, and the ork player doesn't move the BW back. So as far as the positions on the table are concerned they are still in contact. Am I mistaken?

Surely they would end up 1" away from each other, so as not to conflict with that rule. Being more than 1" away from any enemy model at the end of your movement phase, unless you have successfully rammed.

Oshova

Oshova wrote: Being more than 1" away from any enemy model at the end of your movement phase, unless you have successfully rammed.

Sorry, but there is no such rule.

You're not allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model, unless another rule specifically allows it. There is no rule preventing you from being within 1" of an enemy model.

So taking the Ram action allows the enemy tank to break the 1" rule for movement. If the skimmer dodges, both tanks remain where they are, but no Ram has occurred. Nothing says that either vehicle has to be moved... they simply remain where they are until one or the other moves away.

At the point when the enemy tank was moving, it was following a rule that allowed it to break the 1" rule. After the tank has finished its movement, the 1" rule no longer applies, as it only applies to movement, not final placement.

it remains in base to base...
Ramming places the vehicle in base to base contact.

Tank stops in contact with the skimmer as normal. On a roll of 3+, however, nothing further happens.

It is an explicit exception to the can not move within 1" rule.

Note:

If you declare a tank shock, you can not ram. But if you ram you can tank shock intermediate units.

Rules for tank shock state if it moves within 1" of an enemy vehicle, or contact with friendly units, it stops immediately.

So a tank shock can not lead to a ram.

I think some of the posters here have to step back and look at the ridiculousness of what they are posting.

1) GW brought Ramming and Tank shock together to be one rule in order to sell their new Deffrolla upgrade sprue. The complications are that it was never supposed to work this way, but Orks are a bad codex and players felt they had to cheat. You no longer have to declare what kind of rolling tank attack you are using - you just move it the direction you want and then see the results of every contact along the way.

2) The whole point of a 'dodge' is that you avoided contact with something meant to hurt you. This is not a 3+ power armour save we are talking about here. No ram occured, so no damage occurs. What is it dodging if the spiky steamroller hits it and guaranteed kills it? Furthermore, contact does not activate the deffrolla, or no one would ever dream of ramming a battlewagon.

Fearspect wrote:I think some of the posters here have to step back and look at the ridiculousness of what they are posting.

1) GW brought Ramming and Tank shock together to be one rule in order to sell their new Deffrolla upgrade sprue. The complications are that it was never supposed to work this way, but Orks are a bad codex and players felt they had to cheat. You no longer have to declare what kind of rolling tank attack you are using - you just move it the direction you want and then see the results of every contact along the way.

2) The whole point of a 'dodge' is that you avoided contact with something meant to hurt you. This is not a 3+ power armour save we are talking about here. No ram occured, so no damage occurs. What is it dodging if the spiky steamroller hits it and guaranteed kills it? Furthermore, contact does not activate the deffrolla, or no one would ever dream of ramming a battlewagon.

1) Umm you still need to declare a ram as opposed to tankshock or you stop before contact with vehicle (Page 68 right hand column paragraph two). So yes feel free to let people make this mistake then punish them for it.


2) Damn right what part of dodge and 'neither vehilce suffers any damage' is so hard to understand?

1) Pardon?
2) You seem to be right. (See you are right for all visible values of right. (Denyability for the win))

What about the whole psychic ork thing that if they believe it works it does, isn't that how the red paint job works?

orkcommander wrote:What about the whole psychic ork thing that if they believe it works it does, isn't that how the red paint job works?

That's how everything Ork works, and that's why the Blood Angels were able to kick so much ork ass on Armegeddon.

Seriphis wrote:If you declare a tank shock, you can not ram. But if you ram you can tank shock intermediate units.

Rules for tank shock state if it moves within 1" of an enemy vehicle, or contact with friendly units, it stops immediately.

So a tank shock can not lead to a ram.

Unfortunately this is only true for all armies other than Orks, thanks to the wording on the last item in the Ork FAQ stating that a ram is just a type of tank shock.

I see the point, hopefully the next faq or update from here will have a ruling on this.

I stand by my logic, but see where you are coming from too.

I'm not aware of any other wargear that affects a unit upon tank shock/ram. can anyone site examples?

Fearspect wrote:

Seriphis wrote:If you declare a tank shock, you can not ram. But if you ram you can tank shock intermediate units.

Rules for tank shock state if it moves within 1" of an enemy vehicle, or contact with friendly units, it stops immediately.

So a tank shock can not lead to a ram.

Unfortunately this is only true for all armies other than Orks, thanks to the wording on the last item in the Ork FAQ stating that a ram is just a type of tank shock.

Yes that's right Ram is just a type of tank shock - But your wrong, it must be declared, a tankshock (Rectangle) doesn't magically turn into a ram (square) when convient, it must be a ram (Square) from... Square One~! Ta-daaah!!!

Fearspect wrote:Unfortunately this is only true for all armies other than Orks, thanks to the wording on the last item in the Ork FAQ stating that a ram is just a type of tank shock.

That doesn't just apply to Orks... it's also what it says in the Ram rules in the rulebook.

That doesn't change the fact that it has slightly different rules.

Good to know, I thought it changed things for them. I'll remember to call people on it at 'Ard Boyz.

Fearspect wrote:
1) GW brought Ramming and Tank shock together to be one rule in order to sell their new Deffrolla upgrade sprue. The complications are that it was never supposed to work this way, but Orks are a bad codex and players felt they had to cheat. You no longer have to declare what kind of rolling tank attack you are using - you just move it the direction you want and then see the results of every contact along the way.

This is getting ridiculous. Absolutely zonkered ridiculous. At least half of the world of 40k players were clearly able to read the rules, where it has always defined ramming as a tank shock. And another portion of the 40k world felt that was too overpowered and whined about it until people like me just stopped playing with Deffrollas to avoid the argument. Score one for the whiners.

And GW is required to actually make a FAQ ruling that says, "Yes...ramming is a kind of tank shock, just like it says on page 68, so the deffrolla works against vehicles, just like it says in the Codex."

And because GW had to clarify that the rule says what it says....its actually GW doing it just to sell a sprue and to make all us ork players stop cheating?

You're neither the voice of GW nor remotely sensible but you are incredibly inflammatory. You'd be well served not to post any more garbage like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:

2) Damn right what part of dodge and 'neither vehilce suffers any damage' is so hard to understand?

What is neither vehicle not suffering damage from? The only damage the skimmer and battlewagon are avoiding is the ramming hit damage. Deffrolla damage is not the ramming hit damage. You can't bubble a skimmer's "no damage protection" beyond the ramming hit.

Gitsnak and I had the same issue since he added 2 on his wagons this weekend. There is no rule clarification so he and I had to make a call... it seems completely bonkers to both of us that a skimmer dodging a tank shock would in any way be damaged by something on a tank it dodged.

No one in this argument has any rules that say clearly the deff rolla damages the tank before the ram damage. That clearly means they either happen at the same time (as Yak pointed out could happen in another thread) or the deff rolla happens after the ram (which makes little sense)

If I avoid a ram, I don't avoid 'wargear', but I do avoid tank shock/ram associated gear in my opinion. Continuing the argument is only causing more inflammatory reactions. If there is no clear ruling (which seems to be indicated by everyone's split interpretation) then why not inject some common sense?

Common sense? Never! =p

But yeah it does make perfect sense that dodging the tank means that you dodge the massive roller on the front lol

Oshova

Because some people want to win with their toy soldiers so badly they don't care about common sense, naturally

ChrisCP wrote:
2) Damn right what part of dodge and 'neither vehilce suffers any damage' is so hard to understand?

Since we are being purposefully obtuse, surely this means neither the skimmer or the battlewagon will ever suffer any damage again! Depending on the skimmer, this might be a very difficult choice to make, though if you had your vehicles loaded with troops, your newly invulnerable tanks would be in good shape to take objectives!

Or, we can recognize that there is a good possibility that the bit in the ramming rules stating that the dodging skimmer and the tank do not take any damage relates to the damage mentioned in the same section, ie. damage from being rammed (AV-10+Speed/3+1 for being a tank etc.) It is entirely possible that the deffrolla still works because it is an additional effect, not the effect of the ram itself. It is just not clear, and thus is open to "common sense", which as DoP has pointed out has little bearing on 40k rules.

But, as has also been pointed out, having the deffrolla trigger simply because the BW "tank shocked," regardless of whether or not the ram was successfully carried out against the skimmer in the path of the ram, opens up some absurdities in the rules that I would rather play without.

Despite the rules for the two mechanics being significantly different, GW has ruled from on-high that one is a subset for the other. That means that we have to play that a negated ram is a negated tank shock as well.

You cannot tankshock/ram further than you move.

You declare you are attempting the tank shock or ram. You pivot and move at full speed in a single direction.
(At this point there is no target)
The tank comes into contact with a unit or vehicle.
(Unit or vehicle that is BtB becomes the target)
DeffRolla triggers because the unit or vehicle has now been targeted.
Skimmer attempts to dodge.
If successful, ram attack does not resolve.

DeffRolla still triggered and would apply the hits.

Here's where I'm not sure on- the dodge says it avoids the damage. I'm not sure if this will include the DeffRolla hits or not.


Otherwise, the DeffRolla does indeed apply the hits. Just no exact word if the hits are discarded by the dodge.

Dashofpepper wrote:

And GW is required to actually make a FAQ ruling that says, "Yes...ramming is a kind of tank shock, just like it says on page 68, so the deffrolla works against vehicles, just like it says in the Codex."

And because GW had to clarify that the rule says what it says....its actually GW doing it just to sell a sprue and to make all us ork players stop cheating?

Actually every rule in every codex is an attempt by GW to sell models. That's what they are in business to do. Why do you think the Blood Angel's codex sounds so OP, so GW can sell more models.
And anyway just in an effort to be on topic, I don't think there is any reason to believe that skimmers can't dodge a deffrolla attack which is caused by ramming/tank shock. Especially since it says "neither vehicle suffers any damage" under "Ramming a Skimmer"

*edited to fix the quote thingy

DeffRolla triggers because the unit or vehicle has now been targeted.
Skimmer attempts to dodge.
If successful, ram attack does not resolve.

DeffRolla still triggered and would apply the hits

Deffrolla applies the hits to the victim of the ram, as there is no victim because the skimmer has avoided it, there are no hits.

Victim implies something has been hit, or otherwise negatively affected, the victim of the ram was the vehicle that got rammed, the intended victim of the ram was the skimmer who dodged it. as the skimmer after passing the dodge roll has had no negative impact on it, then it can hardly be considered a victim.

When I tank shock a unit, the hits are applied. They passed their leadership test and avoided the tank running them over, but they still take the DeffRolla hits.

Why does a skimmer moving out of the way behave differently than infantry moving out of the way?


What happens when I tank shock a unit is separate from the DeffRolla hit resolution. I declare a tank shock, pivot, move, contact enemy unit. Enemy unit becomes the target, DeffRolla activates and applies d6 hits.
Unit takes test;
> if passes they move and may declare DoG. If DoG is declared, DeffRolla applies additional d6 hits. Resolve DoG. Remove DoG model. Resolve DeffRolla hits.
> if failed, resolve tank shock. Resolve DeffRolla hits.

While there is no explicit statement of this procedure, it is implied in the text as it is worded. The Deffrolla and tank shock rules flow in a specific manner and infer a sort of order to steps.


For ramming;
Declare ram, pivot, move. Contact vehicle- vehicle becomes target- DeffRolla activates and applies d6 hits.
Skimmers get dodge;
> if successful; end ram, end movement. Resolve DeffRolla hits.
> if failed; ram hits, applies hit. Resolve ram. Resolve DeffRolla hits. Continue movement. Repeat process for additional contacts.


Think of it like this;
Normal ram against a skimmer - The skimmer is able to barely edge out of the way of the rushing tank- possibly clipping edges.
DeffRolla Ram against skimmer - The skimmer gets tagged by the DeffRolla attachment as it tries to lift above the oncoming tank.



Again, nothing is explicit in the BRB or Codex regarding skimmers, but I still firmly believe that the DeffRolla still applies hits.

My uncertainty is whether the wording of the dodge for skimmers will negate the DeffRolla damage.
The DeffRolla still applies its hits, but whether the skimmer dodging the ram will negate "all" damage or "just the ram" damage is up in the air.

[EDIT:] I must also state that I am looking purely at the game rules, not some inferred "realism" for floating vehicles being rammed.

In_Theory wrote:Why does a skimmer moving out of the way behave differently than infantry moving out of the way?

Because the moving out of the way is the result of two very different things.

In the case of a tank shock, moving out of the way is the effect of the vehicle's attack.
In the case of the skimmer, moving out of the way is the skimmer avoiding the effect of the vehicle's attack.


To put it another way, the effect of the tank shock is that the unit has to move out of the way. A unit so moving is doing so because it suffers the effects of the tank shock. The effect of a ram is to inflict damage on the enemy vehicle. A skimmer moving out of the way is not doing so because it is affected by the Ram... it is doing so to avoid the effects of the Ram.

So an infantry unit moving out of the way takes Deffrolla damage because it is being affected by the Tank Shock.
A Skimmer dodging out of the way does not take Deffrolla damage because it is avoiding being affected by the Ram.

The problem being: on a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank.

Avoid...that means there is no contact as the skimmer avoids the tank...that means the ram never takes place so there cannot be a triggering of the deff rolla. If there is contact between the skimmer and the tank then we cannot say that the skimmer avoids the tank.

And also, take a closer look at the takes no damage portion of the rules. Why is there any damage from a deff rolla? Because of the ram/ tank shock. What do the rules for a skimmer say about rolling a 3+ and a ram/ tank shock? Neither vehcile takes any damage from the ram/ tank shock. Does the deff rolla ever do any damage outside of a ram/ tank shock...no. So the deff rolla damage is definitely part of the ram/ tank shock attack.

I suppose this is generating so much heat from a few orc players because they expect to face hordes of monoliths in a year or so, as the BW legions sweep all other armies from the competitive lists?


Sliggoth

How that giant bloody thing is a skimmer I'll never know.

You guys forget the the main point of RAW that beats this whole thing rams can' take place cuz that means you have to break the rule that opposing models can't be within an inch of each other when not in assault. And you don't assault in the movement phase so case closed

CajunMan550 wrote:You guys forget the the main point of RAW that beats this whole thing rams can' take place cuz that means you have to break the rule that opposing models can't be within an inch of each other when not in assault. And you don't assault in the movement phase so case closed

That might hold up in a discussion on pure RAW... but it's not how the game will actually be played on the table. It would take a thoroughly unreasonable player to insist that the Ram rules specifically addressing vehicles coming contact with each other doesn't over-ride the 1" rule even though it's not specifically spelt out.

well best we can hope is an INAT update, that will do until GW updates the faq on how the skimmer dodge works vs vehicles that have wargear. I would hope such a ruling is broad enough to cover future issues (other vehicles that possess wargear) but would settle for a specific answer.

NaZ

insaniak wrote:

That might hold up in a discussion on pure RAW... but it's not how the game will actually be played on the table. It would take a thoroughly unreasonable player to insist that the Ram rules specifically addressing vehicles coming contact with each other doesn't over-ride the 1" rule even though it's not specifically spelt out.

Exactly so it fits perfectly in this argument.

CajunMan550 wrote:You guys forget the the main point of RAW that beats this whole thing rams can' take place cuz that means you have to break the rule that opposing models can't be within an inch of each other when not in assault. And you don't assault in the movement phase so case closed

Quote the RAW:

Ramming a Skimmer
Skimmers may try to dodge out of the way of tanks attempting to ram them (as long as the ramming tank is not also a skimmer). The ramming tank stops in contact with the skimmer as normal, but then, if the player controlling the skimmer wants to dodge, he rolls a d6. On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal. On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

I bolded the important parts for you. This rule shows (and the ramming rules themselves show) that ramming vehicles are a specific exception to the 1" rule. So your case is hardly closed.

edit: bold didn't stand out enough, so I underlined the truly crucial parts.

Dashofpepper wrote:Hey folks!

Ran into a situation tonight that I didn't know how to answer:

Battlewagon with a Deffrolla hits a skimmer, which gets to dodge the ram on a 3+. Flipping open the ork codex to the deffrolla, the only requirement for the defrolla to hit is that you tank shock a unit. The skimmer dodged the ram and common sense seems to dictate that it would dodge the deffrolla, but the rules seem to indicate that it doesn't.

And we all know that we abandon common sense when you come to play 40k.

Anyone with something more than an opinion to throw at this?

You may attempt a tank shock, but it is not ensure that a unit is tank shocked. A unit is not tank shocked unless they fail the morale test. If you did not tank shock the unit, then by your explanation of the deff rollas rules, the models are no eligible to be hit by the deff rolla.


EDIT:: nvm I thought you meant tank shocking a unit with a LD value.

streamdragon wrote:
Ramming a Skimmer
Skimmers may try to dodge out of the way of tanks attempting to ram them (as long as the ramming tank is not also a skimmer). The ramming tank stops in contact with the skimmer as normal, but then, if the player controlling the skimmer wants to dodge, he rolls a d6. On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal. On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

I bolded the important parts for you. This rule shows (and the ramming rules themselves show) that ramming vehicles are a specific exception to the 1" rule. So your case is hardly closed.

edit: bold didn't stand out enough, so I underlined the truly crucial parts.

So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

Maelstrom808 wrote:So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

I would be surprised if the GW guys can read.

Gwar! wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

I would be surprised if the GW guys can read.

I am sure they are laughing on how much Rule Nazis have to lead completely by the hand on every single rule. It's a really simple idea no ram, no tank shock, no damage.

General_Chaos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

I would be surprised if the GW guys can read.

I am sure they are laughing on how much Rule Nazis have to lead completely by the hand on every single rule. It's a really simple idea no ram, no tank shock, no damage.

So playing by the rules makes one a Rule Nazi now?

Ramming a skimmer:

On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal.
On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle
suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!),

If a 3+ is rolled then no collision occurs.


In order for a tank shock to occur against a vehicle (tank ram):

If the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, [then] the collision is resolved as follows...

If rammer comes into contact with enemy vehicle, then the collision happens.

Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit (or vehicle for ram).

Any is the universal quantifier meaning "For all X..." meaning that for all tank shocks made with a deff rolla they have the stated result, this requires that the antecedent exists (the tank shock) for the consequent to exist... Similarly:

Relevant definition of Made:

pp. of Make

Definition of Make:
1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of art.
2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.

... Cause to exist.

Thus, if no tank shock is made (i.e. did not come into existence, did not happen) then the consequent does not happen, i.e., no D6 S10 hits.


Formally and abridged for simplicity, all the evidence is above and these are logical equivalents with the conditionals above:

If a 3+, then no collision.
If rammer comes into contact with enemy vehicle, then the collision happens.
Contrapositive: If no collision then no contact
If no contact, then no tank shock
If no tank shock, then no D6 S10 hits

Thus,
If 3+, then no D6 S10 hits

Just a couple modus ponens, not very advanced logic, please feel free to examine my logical progressions.


If you can find a logical error made above, then I made a mistake and my conclusion is wrong. If you cannot find a logical error above, then I did not make a mistake and my conclusion is the actual outcome of this situation.

Gwar! wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

I would be surprised if the GW guys can read.

I am sure they are laughing on how much Rule Nazis have to lead completely by the hand on every single rule. It's a really simple idea no ram, no tank shock, no damage.

So playing by the rules makes one a Rule Nazi now?

When the rules are easily exploitable, yes.

"No 3++ for you!"

If they read discussions like this at all, they should not be laughing, they should be ashamed of themselves and asking themselves "how can we write this better next time."

And sometimes they must read these discussions and realize what they have written....and run and change it. As a little tidbit in the SW faq that ended up changing a lot of cc for a few days until they changed things.



Sliggoth

General_Chaos wrote:

NaZ wrote:It is interesting that this point has not been made here:

the deffrolla does not say when you SUCCESSFULLY tank shock (or ram) a unit.

it says when you tank shock (or ram) a unit.

if a skimmer dodges the ram, that just means neither vehicle is subject to damage under the ram rules.

where does it say anywhere that a skimmer dodge negates the effects of any wargear being carried by the offending vehicle??

I'd love some clarification on this one, but it seems very straightforward from that angle.

NaZ

wow ok so I would declare to tank shock someone 48" away and damn I failed but you still take 1d6 hits... ork technology rocks...

Battlewagon == Ork Pathfinders. Point the finger, and all hell is unleashed across the board.

Gwar! wrote:So playing by the rules makes one a Rule Nazi now?

Now?

Gwar, you have been a rules Nazi since you first joined dakka....that is a compliment by the way; consistency is a good thing, even if I don't always agree with you

BTW, I miss your Troll avatar..so much more fitting!

And yes, this is muddy by RAW, as the wording is very poor, which opens up room for interpretation. As for me, I play both Eldar and Orks and I play it as "dodge = no ram = no deffrolla". Although, I find it truly annoying that GW would finally FAQ that indeed Deffrollas can ram, but then fail to deal with the issue of dodging said ram....more laziness on GW part.

Had a funny thing happen tonight playing what made me think of Gwar

I was playing Necrons and at first was gunna deffrolla ram a Monolith... but as odd as it sounds it's a skimmer.

I posed this to some folks tonight, and a few people who just started playing the game within the last couple weeks knew the correct answer; the def rolla will not get the d6 s10 attacks... I wonder why so many people still struggle with reading the RAW and think that the BW gets the hits.

Because they expect the deffrolla to be the kind of armored bestiality that kills everything in its tracks, and suddenly something can stop it.

INAT Ruling

+ORK.55D.02 – Q: If a skimmer manages to successfully dodge a ramming Battlewagon, does it still suffer hits from the Deff Rolla?
A: No, as a successful dodge by a skimmer means the vehicle wasn‟t actually rammed (tank shocked) [clarification].

Logic isn't it great

General_Chaos wrote:INAT Ruling

... is completely irrelevant unless you're playing in a game in which its use has been agreed upon. Please see the tenets of YMDC (stickied at the top of the forum) if you need clarification of what is considered an acceptable source of rules for YMDC discussions.

insaniak wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:INAT Ruling

... is completely irrelevant unless you're playing in a game in which its use has been agreed upon. Please see the tenets of YMDC (stickied at the top of the forum) if you need clarification of what is considered an acceptable source of rules for YMDC discussions.

The point was they come up with the same logic as a bunch of other people here, No Ram, No tank shock, No damage.

willydstyle wrote:If they read discussions like this at all, they should not be laughing, they should be ashamed of themselves and asking themselves "how can we write this better next time."

GW has every right to laugh uproariously about the angry typing that takes place over the child's game that they write rules for. I love this game, but seriously, let's not get carried away here.

The GW FAQ says that ramming is a type of tank shock, so it seems that the words can be used interchangeably. Therefore the skimmer can dodge a Deff Rolla. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

No to tank shock a unit you have to at least touch a model with the hull at some point in the movement of the tank. The deff rolla in this case would get 2d6 strength 10 hits but no ramming damage.

Presuming that the deffrolla does no damage, then we're left with something that makes less sense.

A skimmer plops down 2" away from a battlewagon; right in front of it in fact. The battlewagon wants to ram 12" through...except that according to the rules, it moves 1", the skimmer dodges on a 3+, and the battlewagon is stopped in its tracks.

If you dodge out of the way and avoid the hit...then you should dodge out of the way, not sit there and block movement.

I guess the problem is going to be convincing someone why their Skimmer takes damage from a Deff Rolla that it successfully dodged.

Bon chance.

Dash - except those are the rules for Ramming; you stop if the skimmer vehicle gets out the way.

This is not inconsistent - this is perfectly consistent.

Orks aren't the brightest. They get confused when the smashy smash doesn't happen

The rule makes sense because no ram would hurt a vehicle except orks if you start from 2" away. So that skimmer wouldn't move if anything else hit it. Only orks are trying to hurt a vehicle from 2" away and have to stop.

To recap: Orks dumb and easily confused. They stop when no bang/smash happens.

Irrifutable Logic!!!!!!!

I think its silly that you shouldnt just sit there because the skimmer dodged. But thems the rules. Id rather not have deffrollas work on tanks at all.

So, I'm going to declare a tank shock with my dethrolla equipped battlewagon on your unit 5 feet away. I can't get to it moving my maximum, but I did declare it. Does the target unit get damaged by the dethrolla?

Homer

Homer S wrote:So, I'm going to declare a tank shock with my dethrolla equipped battlewagon on your unit 5 feet away. I can't get to it moving my maximum, but I did declare it. Does the target unit get damaged by the dethrolla?

Homer

No, because you don't declare tank shocks at units, you declare a direction, then move. If you come into contact with an enemy unit, they are tank shocked.

That wasn't the point, Gwar.

The point was that declaring a Ram doesn't automatically deal the Deff Rolla tank shock hits.

Monster Rain wrote:That wasn't the point, Gwar.

The point was that declaring a Ram doesn't automatically deal the Deff Rolla tank shock hits.

Which noone is arguing, so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the ridiculous red herring about ramming things far out of range.

The deathroller hits just like the ramming rules so the skimmer would get to dodge as normal!

@Gorkamorka:

It was argued a few posts back by someone saying the skimmer could dodge the ram and still take the tank shock hits.

Read the thread, hoss.

Monster Rain wrote:@Gorkamorka:

It was argued a few posts back by someone saying the skimmer could dodge the ram and still take the tank shock hits.

Read the thread, hoss.

Funny, because I did. Please, quote the post where someone arguing for the rolla hitting despite the dodge advocated it hitting models out of range.
Because I can find ~2 posts suggesting it, and they're both sarcastic responses from people against it who were quickly shut down by actual rules knowledge pages ago.
The one on this page was also quickly shut down, and your post added nothing to the argument.

The point is a complete nonstarter, as it ignores the rules entirely AND has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Hoss.

So... You just said that you found the posts I was referring to, and accused me of adding nothing to the conversation in a completely off topic post?

Irony is amusing. Champ.

Gorkamorka wrote:Please, quote the post where someone arguing for the rolla hitting despite the dodge advocated it hitting models out of range.

That's not what I said, either. I was just pointing out that it's just as crazy to imply that a skimmer that dodged takes the hits as it is to try to hit models out of range. In my humble opinion, of course.

ncaa_40k wrote:No to tank shock a unit you have to at least touch a model with the hull at some point in the movement of the tank. The deff rolla in this case would get 2d6 strength 10 hits but no ramming damage.

And this is the post I referred to at the beginning of all this crankiness. Go in peace, fair brother.

Dashofpepper wrote:
If you dodge out of the way and avoid the hit...then you should dodge out of the way, not sit there and block movement.

Sorry I didn't catch this earlier. I see what you're saying, but I just chalk it up to where game mechanics don't match up with common sense. Kind of when you roll for difficult terrain with your infantry and roll snake eyes, when the terrain is only 2 inches away.

Dashofpepper wrote:If you dodge out of the way and avoid the hit...then you should dodge out of the way, not sit there and block movement.

It works that way to avoid forcing you to move the skimmer if the tank would finish its movement underneath it.

ncaa_40k wrote:No to tank shock a unit you have to at least touch a model with the hull at some point in the movement of the tank. The deff rolla in this case would get 2d6 strength 10 hits but no ramming damage.

wrong


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:Presuming that the deffrolla does no damage, then we're left with something that makes less sense.

A skimmer plops down 2" away from a battlewagon; right in front of it in fact. The battlewagon wants to ram 12" through...except that according to the rules, it moves 1", the skimmer dodges on a 3+, and the battlewagon is stopped in its tracks.

If you dodge out of the way and avoid the hit...then you should dodge out of the way, not sit there and block movement.

Not a strange result at all... The skimmer does not block movement:

RAMMING A SKIMMER
Skimmers may try to dodge out of the way of tanks
attempting to ram them (as long as the ramming tank
is not also a skimmer). The ramming tank stops in
contact with the skimmer as normal, but then, if the
player controlling the skimmer wants to dodge, he
rolls a D6. On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal.
On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle
suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

visavismeyou wrote:Not a strange result at all... The skimmer does not block movement:

The passage you just quoted disagrees. Specifically:

...and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

insaniak wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Not a strange result at all... The skimmer does not block movement:

The passage you just quoted disagrees. Specifically:

...and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

Well, the crew stops but not because the skimmer blocked it.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:That wasn't the point, Gwar.

The point was that declaring a Ram doesn't automatically deal the Deff Rolla tank shock hits.

Which noone is arguing, so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the ridiculous red herring about ramming things far out of range.

If you accept that the skimmer still receives d6 s10 hits even if it dodges, then you must also accept that you can defrolla something 5 feet away and still get the d6 s10 hits; why? Because in both cases you are completely abrogating reason, thus, if youre taking one step over a cliff, you might as well take the other.


Just in case someone still thinks that if you roll a 3+ that the skimmer still gets d6 s10 hits from the defrolla, please reread my earlier post:

visavismeyou wrote:Formally and abridged for simplicity, all the evidence is above and these are logical equivalents with the conditionals above:

If a 3+, then no collision.
If rammer comes into contact with enemy vehicle, then the collision happens.
Contrapositive: If no collision then no contact
If no contact, then no tank shock
If no tank shock, then no D6 S10 hits

Thus,
If 3+, then no D6 S10 hits

Oh and the rulebook states that a Tank shock and Tank ram are the same thing with different victims.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is
executed the same way, except that the tank must
always move at the highest speed it is capable of.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Not a strange result at all... The skimmer does not block movement:

The passage you just quoted disagrees. Specifically:

...and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

Actually, no it doesnt, you just dont understand it.

visavismeyou wrote:Actually, no it doesnt, you just dont understand it.

The forum doesn't charge by the word. If you have a point to make, please make it. Simply declaring that someone is wrong without backing it up with an actual argument is considered spam, and will be dealt with as such.

insaniak wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Actually, no it doesnt, you just dont understand it.

The forum doesn't charge by the word. If you have a point to make, please make it. Simply declaring that someone is wrong without backing it up with an actual argument is considered spam, and will be dealt with as such.

I already did, i didn't think that quoting my entire post would be the best thing to do, but, since you insist:

ncaa_40k wrote:No to tank shock a unit you have to at least touch a model with the hull at some point in the movement of the tank. The deff rolla in this case would get 2d6 strength 10 hits but no ramming damage.

Actually, your conclusion is in error, for simplicities sake, and because insaniak insisted, I'll direct you to my previous post which exhaustively demonstrates why your conclusion is invalid and why the "If the skimmer's controller rolls a 3+, then no D6 S10 hits happen" argument is the only valid one.

visavismeyou wrote:Ramming a skimmer:

On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal.
On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle
suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!),

If a 3+ is rolled then no collision occurs.


In order for a tank shock to occur against a vehicle (tank ram):

If the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, [then] the collision is resolved as follows...

If rammer comes into contact with enemy vehicle, then the collision happens.

Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit (or vehicle for ram).

Any is the universal quantifier meaning "For all X..." meaning that for all tank shocks made with a deff rolla they have the stated result, this requires that the antecedent exists (the tank shock) for the consequent to exist... Similarly:

Relevant definition of Made:

pp. of Make

Definition of Make:
1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of art.
2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.

... Cause to exist.

Thus, if no tank shock is made (i.e. did not come into existence, did not happen) then the consequent does not happen, i.e., no D6 S10 hits.


Formally and abridged for simplicity, all the evidence is above and these are logical equivalents with the conditionals above:

If a 3+, then no collision.
If rammer comes into contact with enemy vehicle, then the collision happens.
Contrapositive: If no collision then no contact
If no contact, then no tank shock
If no tank shock, then no D6 S10 hits

Thus,
If 3+, then no D6 S10 hits

Just a couple modus ponens, not very advanced logic, please feel free to examine my logical progressions.


If you can find a logical error made above, then I made a mistake and my conclusion is wrong. If you cannot find a logical error above, then I did not make a mistake and my conclusion is the actual outcome of this situation.

visavismeyou, the point I was asking you to explain was the one I responded to. You stated that I 'don't understand' the reason that skimmers do not block the movement of the ramming tank, despite the rules quite clearly saying otherwise.


As for the rest, if you're just going to quote the same post you have already made, there's not really any point in responding. You already made the point. If someone contests it, simply repeating yourself serves no purpose. You can rephrase your argument in an attempt to make it more understandable for the other poster, or you can simply accept that sometimes people don't agree, and move on.

Ramming a Skimmer

the ramming tank stops in contact with skimmer as normal. on a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, niether vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!)....

GW Ork FAQ

Q: does a unit that successfully stop a Deff rolla equiped Battle wagon's Tank Shock suffer any hits?

A. Yes, it does. In fact, it suffers 2D6 S10 hits!

On a 3+ a skimmer stops the tank shock but it says nothing about stopping the Rolla. It really does not specify but the FAQ seams to support the Rolla damage (actually more damage to anything trying to avoid the hit) no matter what stops the tank shock.

We appear to have started going around in circles here, so I think this one's about done.